5.  The applicant is registered in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The State company “Vibropribor” (“SCV”) was created on 14 May 1995 and was registered in the State Register of Companies.
8.  On 3 July 1996 the “Vibropribor” joint-stock company (“V.”) was registered by the State Register of Companies. V. was the result of the reorganisation of SCV into a joint-stock company, based on a founding contract between the Department of Privatisation (“the Department”) and two private companies.
9.  In 1998 the Department initiated court proceedings for the annulment of the contract for the founding of V., alleging that it had been concluded in violation of the law, and for restitutio in integrum. On 14 September 1998 the Economic Court of Moldova rejected that request as unfounded. That judgment was upheld by the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court on 24 May 1999 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 29 September 1999. That judgment was final.
10.  The Department requested the re-opening of the proceedings, invoking an incorrect assessment of the facts and law in the previous judgments.
11.  On 22 February 2001 the Economic Court rejected that request on res judicata grounds.
12.  On 25 June 2001 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court accepted the request, ordering the liquidation of V. and restitutio in integrum. That judgment was final.
13.  In execution of this judgment, on 23 August 2001 the Department ordered the creation of a liquidation commission which was charged, inter alia, with determining V.'s debts toward third parties and debts owed to V. and with the payment of V.'s debts following the Department's approval.
14.  In 2002 the Prosecutor General requested the Supreme Court of Justice to re-open the proceedings and to quash the 1998-1999 judgments.
15.  On 11 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted that request and quashed the judgments of 14 September 1998, of 24 May 1999 and of 29 September 1999. The court adopted a new judgment, declaring null and void the contract for the founding of V. The court found that the two private founding companies had not fulfilled their obligations by failing to transfer their contributions to V.'s capital. As a result, V.'s registration in the State Register of Companies was annulled on 18 May 2002 and SCV was registered instead (“the new SCV”), stating in its statute that the company was created on the basis of “Vibroaparat” company (which existed before V.'s creation). The new SCV's address mentioned in the statute was 10 Gagarin str. in Chişinău.
16.  On 3 April 2002 the Department requested a revision of the final judgment of 25 June 2001. On 24 April 2002 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court accepted that request and changed the formulation of the judgment from an order for the liquidation of V. to a declaration that V. had not been lawfully founded and that all its assets should be returned as they were on 3 July 1996. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 March 2002 as the basis for the change of formulation, since that judgment had annulled the contract for the founding of V.
17.  On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected a request for the revision of its judgment of 11 March 2002.
18.  On 8 August 1997 the applicant issued a credit to V. in the amount of 3,472,965 Moldovan lei (MDL). As established by the prosecutor's office in subsequent criminal proceedings against V.'s president, the money had been used for the purchase of equipment. In accordance with a contract dated 20 August 1997 V. pledged movable property valued at MDL 1,428,000 as a guarantee of complying with the contract. V.'s address mentioned in the contract was 10 Gagarin str. in Chişinău.
19.  In 1999 the applicant went into liquidation, proceedings which still continue. On 18 September 2001 the Department informed the applicant about the initiation of V.'s liquidation proceedings (see paragraph 13 above). On 2 October 2001 the applicant asked V.'s liquidation commission to be listed as one of V.'s creditors, mentioning the amount of the credit debt. It is unclear what the commission's response was.
20.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against V. On 26 February 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court awarded the applicant MDL 3,383,991 (the equivalent of 294,623 euros (EUR) at the time). There was no appeal and the judgment became final 15 days later. On 14 March 2002 the court issued an enforcement warrant.
21.  On 25 March 2002 the bailiff gave the opportunity to V. to pay its debt to the applicant. Following its refusal, on 2 April 2002 the bailiff seized two of V.'s building situated at 10 Gagarin str. in Chişinău in order to sell them at an auction. According to an expert report dated 30 April 2002 and filed at the Centru District Court's request, one of those buildings (“D”) had a total surface of over 5,400 m2 and at the time its market value was MDL 4,800,000 or 358,200 United States Dollars (USD). The bailiff made an auction announcement in the local press for the sale of V.'s “D” building, setting the initial price at MDL 4,800,000. The first auction was declared invalid due to the lack of potential buyers.
22.  Following V.'s complaint (under its new name of SCV as a result of becoming again a State company following the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 March 2002, see paragraph 15 above), on 2 July 2002 the Centru District Court stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of SCV's complaint against the actions of the bailiff.
23.  On 18 July 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision of the State Register of Companies of 18 May 2002 to annul V.'s registration (see paragraph 15 above) on the grounds that it had been taken in violation of the law, the authorities having failed to properly liquidate V. and to pay its debt to the applicant.
24.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant requested a change in the method of enforcement of the final judgment of 26 February 2002, leaving it to the court to choose the most appropriate way of enforcement. The applicant referred to V.'s building seized in 2002 for sale at an auction and to the impossibility of enforcing the judgment by selling that building in view of the removing of V.'s name from the State Register of Companies. They claimed that the applicable legal provisions dealing with the manner of liquidating a company, including the payment of its debts, had not been followed in V.'s case.
25.  On 11 December 2003 the Economic Court rejected that request. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had not proved that the new SCV was V.'s successor since no act for the transfer of assets between these two companies had been submitted to the court.
26.  On 29 January 2004 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court upheld that judgment. That judgment was final. The court found that the applicant had not submitted proof that the assets, rights and obligations of V. had been transferred to SCV after the annulment of the contract for the founding of V.